Gun-Free-School-Fraud Costs Lives Again - Page 4

Kapitan_Phillips · 04-21-07, 06:44 AM

Solution: Trained Armed security.

U-533 · 04-21-07, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSgalileo

I prefer free gun school, my GF is professor in a University, imagine a guy/girl with a F at an exam, he/her draw his/her handgun and shoot at her just because she give him/her a F.

Imagine if the Professor was armed also and knew that this nutjob may pull a gun on him/her... hell ... for that matter the professor didn't know him/her would pull a gun

The question would be ... If the Him/Her was to wonder weather or not the Professor was armed as well would the him/her who got an F ... pull a gun to begin with?

But that leads one back to the reason the him/her failed and thought him/her should pass no matter what...

If you deserve a F you should study harder.

OK...

If him/her was doing him/her and him/her was to start doing another him/her and the him/her got jealous and him/her pulled a gun on the other two him/her but the other him/her was packing also and pulled a gun and another him/her saw the him/her pull a gun then the him/her would shoot the him/her and the him/her would not need a him/her to shoot another him/her caise the him/her would think " hey ... that him/her may have a gun and I should not pull a gun on him/her I may die and not kill him/her for doing him/her in the first place...

whew!... umm.. throw an IT in there too...

U-533 · 04-21-07, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

Solution: Trained Armed security.

HMM:hmm:

A 'Trained Armed Security Person" in each room, This would solve the unemployment problem... but it would drive the cost of higher education up to where only the filthy nasty rich could afford it.

Yahoshua · 04-21-07, 07:07 PM

The courts found Cho mentally ill.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...19071cho1.html

As such he should've been put into the NICS database and rendered ineligible to purchase firearms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us...in&oref=slogin

Case law regarding what constitutes mental illness and constitutes ineligibility for certain activities. While the interpretation of the law has changed between 1973 and 2004, the more recent interpretation should've barred Cho from having been released from court custody in the first place. The courts droped the ball on this one BIG time.

Here's the link and the relevant excerpt:

http://www.abanet.org/disability/publicati...r/caselaw.shtml

Seizure of Firearms; Outpatient Treatment

An Iowa federal court granted the U.S. government's motion to destroy the firearms and ammunition of a man with a long history of mental illness, finding as a matter of first impression that outpatient treatment constitutes "commitment to a mental institution" for purposes of the federal firearms statute, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4). United States v. B.H., 2006 WL 3531418.

B.H., a 63-year-old man with a long history of schizophrenia, collects firearms and ammunition. In September 2002, B.H. was involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment. State law enforcement officers executed a search warrant and seized 12 handguns, eight long guns, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from B.H.'s home. In April 2003, B.H. was discharged from outpatient commitment. In November, a state court ordered the law enforcement officials to return the firearms and ammunition to B.H. The federal government filed a complaint in district court, asking the court to declare the seized items contraband as to B.H., pursuant to §922(g)(4), which prohibits a person who was been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" from possessing firearms or ammunition.

The district court granted the government's motion. First, the court found that B.H. was not "adjudicated as a mental defective." The Eighth Circuit has defined a "mental defective" as "a person who has never possessed a normal degree of intellectual capacity." United States v. Hansel, 474 F.2d 1120 (8th Cir. 1973). The state referee's finding that B.H. was "seriously mentally impaired" at the time of the commitment hearing did not amount to a finding that B.H. "never possessed a normal degree of intellectual capacity." Rather, the treating physician's report indicated that B.H. had developed schizophrenia in the 1960s and has intermittently battled the condition since that time.

The government urged the court to adopt a broader definition of "mental defective," relying on a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulation that defines "adjudicated as a mental defective" as "a determination by a court that a person, as a result of a mental illness, condition or disease (1) is a danger to himself or others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs." 27 C.F.R. §478.11. A Michigan federal court had declined to follow Hansel and, instead, adopted the ATF's regulation. United States v. Vertz, 102 F. Supp. 2d 787 (W.D. Mich. 2000), aff'd on other grounds, 40 Fed. Appx. 69 (6th Cir. 2002), 26 MPDLR 795. Unlike the district court in Vertz, the court here is bound to follow Hansel, so long as it is not inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The court recognized some tension between Hansel and the Supreme Court's holding in Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (1983), but did not find the two cases inconsistent. In Dickerson, the Court stated that 18 U.S.C. §921 et seq. has a "broad prophylactic purpose." The court here noted that the Court's reference was a general remark about the statute, and that the Court did not define "mental defective."

Second, the court ruled that outpatient treatment may constitute "commitment to a mental institution" for purposes of the federal firearms statute. Turning to the plain meaning of the statutory language, the court noted that the statute only requires commitment to, not in, a mental institution. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4). Under Iowa law, a formal order of commitment is a prerequisite to outpatient treatment, outpatient treatment continues only while the patient is under such an order, and the treatment does not end absent a court order terminating the commitment. See Iowa Code §229.13.

Just as a disclaimer, I didn't find any of this information myself. And I'm very grateful to my friends who know of such resources and how to use them.

As a final note: There's nothing wrong with firearms laws as they are, but there is something wrong about how this case was handled. That mishandling resulted in a series of mistakes that allowed this to come about.

U-533 · 04-22-07, 08:40 AM

probaly cause theres an A in the race box and not a W

I have noticed in the last 5 years here in the great city that once was where I live

if you want something done do not put the letter W in the race box

:rotfl:
I usually put G.E.* in my race box and I get my permits done tootsweet**

my wife still holds to the W and it takes her weeks or months to get premits through

try it next time use another letter or combination of letters***

*Galactic Emperor
** with in an hour
***don't use G.E. thats mine

P_Funk · 04-22-07, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by U-533

probaly cause theres an A in the race box and not a W

You are obcessed with race. You bring it up at every opportunity. If there is a prejudice at work its most likely yours.

U-533 · 04-22-07, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by U-533

probaly cause theres an A in the race box and not a W

You are obcessed with race. You bring it up at every opportunity. If there is a prejudice at work its most likely yours.

no no no silly it has to do with

George W. Bush

see the W in there

when these city emplyees see the letter W they immedatly think your going to make them work for a living

just because it falls into the RACE BOX dosn't mean I have a problem with race

SUBMAN1 · 04-22-07, 10:38 AM

If the courts found him mentally ill, then someone is in deap doo doo for selling him a weapon! Wait till this story comes out!

-S

Yahoshua · 04-22-07, 09:56 PM

From what I understand, the responsibility now falls to the courts fro not filing a report with the NICS system to enter Chos' name into the database.

So when the dealer in Roanoke called up NICS while doing a background check on Cho, he came clean. So the courts really dropped the ball on this one, more than likely it'll either come down to the judge or some anonymous court clerk whom will get the blame for it.

04-21-07, 06:44 AM	#46
Kapitan_Phillips Silent Hunter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Swansea Posts: 3,903 Downloads: 204 Uploads: 0	Solution: Trained Armed security. __________________ Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into.

04-21-07, 07:07 PM	#49
Yahoshua The Old Man Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,493 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	The courts found Cho mentally ill. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...19071cho1.html As such he should've been put into the NICS database and rendered ineligible to purchase firearms. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us...in&oref=slogin Case law regarding what constitutes mental illness and constitutes ineligibility for certain activities. While the interpretation of the law has changed between 1973 and 2004, the more recent interpretation should've barred Cho from having been released from court custody in the first place. The courts droped the ball on this one BIG time. Here's the link and the relevant excerpt: http://www.abanet.org/disability/publicati...r/caselaw.shtml Seizure of Firearms; Outpatient Treatment An Iowa federal court granted the U.S. government's motion to destroy the firearms and ammunition of a man with a long history of mental illness, finding as a matter of first impression that outpatient treatment constitutes "commitment to a mental institution" for purposes of the federal firearms statute, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4). United States v. B.H., 2006 WL 3531418. B.H., a 63-year-old man with a long history of schizophrenia, collects firearms and ammunition. In September 2002, B.H. was involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment. State law enforcement officers executed a search warrant and seized 12 handguns, eight long guns, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from B.H.'s home. In April 2003, B.H. was discharged from outpatient commitment. In November, a state court ordered the law enforcement officials to return the firearms and ammunition to B.H. The federal government filed a complaint in district court, asking the court to declare the seized items contraband as to B.H., pursuant to §922(g)(4), which prohibits a person who was been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" from possessing firearms or ammunition. The district court granted the government's motion. First, the court found that B.H. was not "adjudicated as a mental defective." The Eighth Circuit has defined a "mental defective" as "a person who has never possessed a normal degree of intellectual capacity." United States v. Hansel, 474 F.2d 1120 (8th Cir. 1973). The state referee's finding that B.H. was "seriously mentally impaired" at the time of the commitment hearing did not amount to a finding that B.H. "never possessed a normal degree of intellectual capacity." Rather, the treating physician's report indicated that B.H. had developed schizophrenia in the 1960s and has intermittently battled the condition since that time. The government urged the court to adopt a broader definition of "mental defective," relying on a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulation that defines "adjudicated as a mental defective" as "a determination by a court that a person, as a result of a mental illness, condition or disease (1) is a danger to himself or others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs." 27 C.F.R. §478.11. A Michigan federal court had declined to follow Hansel and, instead, adopted the ATF's regulation. United States v. Vertz, 102 F. Supp. 2d 787 (W.D. Mich. 2000), aff'd on other grounds, 40 Fed. Appx. 69 (6th Cir. 2002), 26 MPDLR 795. Unlike the district court in Vertz, the court here is bound to follow Hansel, so long as it is not inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The court recognized some tension between Hansel and the Supreme Court's holding in Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (1983), but did not find the two cases inconsistent. In Dickerson, the Court stated that 18 U.S.C. §921 et seq. has a "broad prophylactic purpose." The court here noted that the Court's reference was a general remark about the statute, and that the Court did not define "mental defective." Second, the court ruled that outpatient treatment may constitute "commitment to a mental institution" for purposes of the federal firearms statute. Turning to the plain meaning of the statutory language, the court noted that the statute only requires commitment to, not in, a mental institution. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4). Under Iowa law, a formal order of commitment is a prerequisite to outpatient treatment, outpatient treatment continues only while the patient is under such an order, and the treatment does not end absent a court order terminating the commitment. See Iowa Code §229.13. Just as a disclaimer, I didn't find any of this information myself. And I'm very grateful to my friends who know of such resources and how to use them. As a final note: There's nothing wrong with firearms laws as they are, but there is something wrong about how this case was handled. That mishandling resulted in a series of mistakes that allowed this to come about. __________________ Science is the organized unpredictability that strives not to set limits to mans' capabilities, but is the engine by which the limits of mans' understanding is defined-Yahoshua

04-22-07, 10:38 AM	#53
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	If the courts found him mentally ill, then someone is in deap doo doo for selling him a weapon! Wait till this story comes out! -S __________________

04-22-07, 09:56 PM	#54
Yahoshua The Old Man Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,493 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	From what I understand, the responsibility now falls to the courts fro not filing a report with the NICS system to enter Chos' name into the database. So when the dealer in Roanoke called up NICS while doing a background check on Cho, he came clean. So the courts really dropped the ball on this one, more than likely it'll either come down to the judge or some anonymous court clerk whom will get the blame for it. __________________ Science is the organized unpredictability that strives not to set limits to mans' capabilities, but is the engine by which the limits of mans' understanding is defined-Yahoshua

04-22-07, 08:40 AM	#50
U-533 Samurai Navy Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: On my Boat Posts: 594 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	probaly cause theres an A in the race box and not a W I have noticed in the last 5 years here in the great city that once was where I live if you want something done do not put the letter W in the race box :rotfl: I usually put G.E.* in my race box and I get my permits done tootsweet my wife still holds to the W and it takes her weeks or months to get premits through try it next time use another letter or combination of letters* Galactic Emperor * with in an hour ***don't use G.E. thats mine